Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
While no one expects the eloquence of Abraham Lincoln to issue from Barack Obama’s lips, the President’s Proclamation of Thanksgiving 2014 lacks not only Lincoln’s style, but unfortunately even a basic understanding of what America’s greatest feast is all about.
When Abraham Lincoln solemnly proclaimed the Thanksgiving holiday in 1863, during the bitter heat of the American Civil War, he consciously instituted a God-centered feast. He invited a divided America in the midst of acute hardship to count its blessings and to acknowledge the goodness of Almighty God, rendering Him the gratitude that was due.
Lincoln saw that “we are prone to forget the source” from which our blessings flow, and to remedy that, he enumerates the bounty that has been poured out over America by our Maker. These gifts of God are so great, Lincoln reasons, that they “cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.”
And his conclusion is that “no human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”
And so President Lincoln invited all Americans, even those at sea or sojourning in foreign lands, “to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”
The humility and sincere religious faith of the 16th president is nowhere in evidence in this year’s Thanksgiving proclamation. It isn’t irreverent, or course, or lacking in niceties about blessings and community and shelters and soup kitchens. It is, however, lacking in any mention of God’s providence and gifts, except a single nod to us carrying forward the legacy of our forebears “with God’s grace.” Yes, if you blinked you will have missed the sole reference to God in the proclamation of a feast supposedly instituted to give Him thanks.
This is not a momentary lapse, but a constant in the President’s Thanksgiving proclamations, as Breitbart has noted in other years. Obama’s 2009 statement made history by being the first Thanksgiving proclamation ever to omit any reference to God whatsoever. Reading back over Obama’s Thanksgiving proclamations, Chuck Norris felt obliged to admit that “for five years, the president has flunked Thanksgiving Day remembrance and proclamation.
And so we are invited to reflect on our blessings and gather with family and friends in a spirit of gratitude, and yet as we do so we realize, as Abraham Lincoln so wisely noted, that “we are prone to forget the source” from which our blessings flow.
MISTAKEN CONCEPTIONS CONCERNING "WAITING FOR THE SPIRIT"
(2) Mistaken conceptions concerning "waiting for the Spirit"
to descend. Here again we find expressions and theories
misleading, and opening the door to Satanic deceptions.
"If we want a Pentecostal manifestation of the Spirit, we
must 'tarry' as did the disciples before Pentecost," we have
said the one to the other, and we have seized upon the text
in Luke 24: 49, and Acts 1: 4, and passed the word along.
"Yes, we must 'tarry,'" until, compelled by the inroads of the
adversary in "waiting meetings," we have had to search the
Scriptures once more, to discover that the Old Testament
word of "wait on the Lord" so often used in the Psalms, has
been strained beyond the New Testament proportion of truth,
and exaggerated into a "waiting on God" for the outpouring
of the Spirit, which has even gone beyond the "ten days"
which preceded Pentecost, into four months, and even four
years, and which, to our knowledge, has ended in an influx
of deceiving spirits which has rudely awakened some of the
waiting souls. The Scriptural truth concerning waiting for the
Spirit" may be summed up as follows:
The disciples waited ten days, but we have no indication
that they "waited" in any passive state, but rather in simple
prayer, and supplication, until the fulness of time had come
for the fulfillment of the promise of the Father.
The command to wait, given by the Lord (Acts 1: 4) was not
carried forward into the Christian dispensation after the Holy
Ghost had come, for in no single instance, either in the Acts
or in the Epistles, do the Apostles bid the disciples "tarry" for
the gift of the Holy Spirit, but they use the word "receive" in
every instance (Acts 19: 2).
It is true that at this time the Church is, as a whole, living
experimentally on the wrong side of Pentecost, but in dealing
with God individually for the reception of the Holy Spirit, this
does not put the seekers back to the position of the disciples
before the Holy Ghost had been given by the Ascended Lord.
The Risen Lord poured forth the stream of the Spirit again and
again after the day of Pentecost, but in each instance it was
without "tarrying" as the disciples did at the first (see Acts. 4:31).
The Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son
to His people, is now among them, waiting to give Himself
unceasingly to all who will appropriate, and receive Him
(John 15: 26 ; Acts 2: 33, 38, 39). A " waiting for the Spirit"
therefore is not in accord with the general tenor of the truth
given in the Acts and the Epistles, which show rather the
imperative call to the believer to put in his claim, not only to
his identification with the Lord Jesus in His death, and union
in life with Him in His resurrection, but also to the enduement
for witnessing, which came to the disciples on the Day of
On the believer's side, we may say, however, that there is a
waiting for God, whilst the Holy Spirit deals with, and prepares,
the one who has put in his claim, until he is in the right attitude
for the influx of the Holy Spirit into his spirit, but this is different
from the "waiting for Him to come," which has opened the door
so frequently to Satanic manifestations from the unseen world.
The Lord does take the believer at his word when he puts in his
claim for his share of the Pentecostal gift, but the "manifestation
of the Spirit"--the evidence of His indwelling and outworking--
may not be according to any pre-conceptions of the seeker.
War on the Saints by Jessie Penn-Lewis
Tomorrow: Why Waiting Meetings Are Profitable to Evil Spirits
The folks at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) want to rid the country of every vestige of religion from every facet of society and make the nation officially atheistic. They contend that the Constitution requires it based on a tortured reading of the First Amendment and a rewriting of our nation’s history.
You don’t have to have a PhD in history to know that not one of our founders would have supported the exploits of the FFRF and Americans United for Separation of Church and State for the simple reason that history is against them.
Of course, atheists are Americans because they were born or have become citizens in accordance with specific constitutional requirements.
But it terms of how our founders understood what it meant to be an American, and the role they believed that God played in its founding, they are fundamentally un-American.
As singular proof of this claim is President George Washington’s 1789 “Thanksgiving Proclamation,” which was issued soon after the passage of the Bill of Rights which included the First Amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .”
If there had been a FFRF in 1789, Dan Barker, co-president of the FFRF, would have sued the President and Congress. Of course, the men who drafted the First Amendment would have been called as witnesses and would have testified that separating God from government, and that religion was ever an impediment to the development of science, was never the intention of the First Amendment.
Note the first line of the Proclamation and other references to God.
Issued by President George Washington, at the request of Congress, on October 3, 1789. By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.http://religiousfreedom.org/imgLib/20111115_thanksgivingproc.jpg
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and—Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/18771/cant-...
Establishment forces from around the world are exploiting the threat posed by the terrorist group styling itself the “Islamic State,” often referred to as ISIS or ISIL, to advance globalism and to further empower the United Nations.
Establishment forces from around the world are exploiting the threat posed by the terrorist group styling itself the “Islamic State,” often referred to as ISIS or ISIL, to advance globalism and to further empower the United Nations. Indeed, the barbaric terror organization, which Vice President Joe Biden recently admitted was created, armed, and funded by the Obama administration’s supposed “anti-ISIS” coalition, is now being paraded around by globalist extremists to push a dizzying array of longtime establishment goals. Without a massive public outcry, they may succeed.
From a UN war on “non-violent extremism” and international restrictions on speech to a UN-led global terror war and more power for the global “criminal court,” the self-styled “Islamic State” has become a convenient and widely cited pretext for advancing a broad range of attacks on liberty and national sovereignty. Quietly and largely under the radar, some of those efforts have already succeeded in recent months. However, the international establishment has even more ambitious plans underway as its own operatives stir up hysteria about ISIS barbarism to push more internationalism.
Last week, for example, the 15-member UN Security Council, which contains multiple brutal regimes, voted unanimously to approve a far-reaching resolution purportedly dealing with ISIS. In reality, though, the controversial measure, combined with other UN and globalist schemes, aims to drastically expand the role of the dictator-dominated organization into a planetary regime involved in everything from supposedly “fighting terror” and “crime” to waging a propaganda war against what it considers to be “extremism” in "all forms."
For instance, the resolution adopted by the Security Council at the November 19 summit on “International Cooperation in Combating Terrorism and Violent Extremism” touts the alleged “continued need to improve the visibility and effectiveness of the UN’s role in countering the spread of violent ideologies.” Because the UN as an entity was sold to the masses as a tool for preserving “international peace,” the resolution also claims that terrorism “in all forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.” Ironically, numerous UN members and even agencies have been implicated in terrorism.
In his remarks to the UN Security Council, however, UN boss Ban Ki-moon celebrated the “unity of purpose” among UN member governments and dictatorships in supposedly combating ISIS. Unsurprisingly, he failed to mention the well-documented role of prominent UN member regimes — Sunni Islamic dictatorships in particular — in creating the ruthless terror group to begin with in an effort to overthrow the "apostate" autocracy ruling Syria. But for Ban and other fellow globalists, ISIS — like climate alarmism — is almost certainly just a convenient excuse to boost UN power, as his own words revealed.
“We are increasingly seeing terrorism, drug trafficking and transnational crime grow in intensity and feed off each other,” Ban told the Security Council, implying that the UN’s job now includes global law enforcement. “The international community and the UN must ensure the full implementation of our many tools for action — including Security Council resolutions and the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.”
Ban touted, among other developments, efforts by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime — a widely ridiculed outfit led by a former diplomat for the mass-murdering Soviet regime who recently blasted the United States for not complying with “international law” — in foisting UN demands on the world. He claimed UNODC was working to “strengthen the legal and criminal justice capacity of Middle East and Northern African countries to address the threat posed by foreign fighters.” The UN also works with brutal regimes to disarm law-abiding citizens under the guise of "criminal justice" and "peace."
Now it is in the business of countering “ideologies” and “extremism,” too. “Violent extremism is a multi-dimensional challenge that needs to be effectively addressed at the grassroots level,” the UN boss continued, touting the planetary outfit’s self-proclaimed mission of addressing the supposed “socio-economic roots” of the “scourge” of extremism. “We must continue to think more deeply into the fundamental conditions that allow extremism to thrive. Looking at these challenges solely through a military lens has shown its limits.”
The latest UN schemes purporting to deal with ISIS come on the heels of the previous UN Security Council meeting that took place in September. Unsurprisingly, as The New American reported at the time, that gathering, too, featured shameless exploitation of the ISIS threat to empower the dictator-dominated organization. Among other victories for globalism under the guise of battling ISIS, the supposedly “binding” UN resolution approved a new global “terror” regime that purports to control travel — essentially a global “no-fly” list. It also demands that national governments pass “terror” laws demanded by the UN.
That scheme was pushed primarily by the Obama administration — increasingly infamous for its role in funding, arming, training, and supporting the very same jihadist forces that the UN resolution purports to target (See Libya). “I called this meeting because we must come together as nations and as an international community to confront a real and growing threat of foreign terrorist fighters,” Obama said, referring to “nations” when he really meant the governments and dictatorships ruling over nations. “The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our commitment to meet this challenge.”
Resolutions, though, “will not be enough,” Obama added. “The words spoken here today must be matched and translated into action, into deeds, concrete action.” True to his word, shortly after that, the Obama administration announced broad new powers for Interpol, a self-styled international law-enforcement agency once controlled by the National Socialists (Nazis) that even recently has reportedly been used by Islamic dictatorships to hunt down converts to Christianity. Obama’s outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that “Interpol — as the world’s largest international police organization — has a vital role to play in safeguarding our homeland and protecting the American people.”
In response to the September Security Council resolution, the UN is now “helping” its member governments and dictatorships to “analyze” the extremism phenomenon, to “develop policy responses,” and to “address the multi-dimensional challenges of extremist ideologies,” Ban told the Security Council last week. The UN is also “examining how best to strengthen the counter-terrorism capabilities of UN Special Political Missions, Peacekeeping Operations and UN Country Teams,” declared the controversial UN boss. “People need equality and opportunity in their lives.”
Apparently the UN’s military, war-making forces outlandishly described as “peace” armies, are preparing to impose those goals — as if ISIS fighters just needed some more “equality.” Indeed, as The New American reported last month, the Obama administration, working with a wide array of brutal autocracies, is currently working on overdrive to expand the power and resources of the UN’s “peacekeeping” military — the very same UN forces responsible for slaughtering, raping, terrorizing, and abusing civilians around the world with impunity. Efforts to empower the controversial global military are being justified largely by pointing to ISIS.
Even while globalist schemes to radically expand planetary military and “law enforcement” outfits gain traction under the guise of fighting terror and extremism, the UN is also seeking to boost its controversial kangaroo “court” known as the International Criminal Court. Again, the excuse is ISIS. Just this week, UN “High Commissioner for Human Rights” Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, who presides over a gaggle of dictators, governments, and serial human-rights abusers styling themselves the UN “Human Rights Council,” argued that ISIS members should be prosecuted at the pseudo-“court” in The Hague. While the U.S. government is not a member of the body, which recognizes none of the constitutionally protected rights enshrined in the Constitution, the ICC purports to have “jurisdiction” over every person on Earth for a wide range of vague and undefined “crimes” such as “aggression.”
For some globalists, though, even the fast-accelerating empowerment of the UN to “fight” ISIS is not proceeding quickly enough. “Although a concerted effort is now clearly visible in this direction, the United Nations has yet to sufficiently leverage the expertise of many of its own departments and agencies with relevant and valuable experience on core elements of countering violent extremism, including development, education and strategic communications,” claimed Global Center on Cooperative Security Executive Director Alistair Millar in a recent piece published by the Baltimore Sun. “A special representative would be essential for getting this job done, optimizing the resources and focusing the attention of the vast U.N. bureaucracy on a threat that is likely to shape many of the key conflicts of our time.”
Of course, calls to empower the UN and a “special representative” to wage war on “extremism” have been growing quickly. As The New American reported last month, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron wants the autocrat-dominated global body to appoint a “special representative” in charge of countering “non-violent extremism” — which he said includes everything from doubting official storylines about terror attacks to believing in “nonsense” religious prophecies about the end-times.
“We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism — not just violent extremism,” Cameron explained to the UN’s largely autocratic member regimes, acknowledging that the machinations would not be entirely “compatible” with free speech and intellectual inquiry. “We shouldn’t stand by and just allow any form of non-violent extremism. And we need the strongest possible international focus on tackling this ideology — which is why here at the United Nations, the United Kingdom is calling for a new Special Representative on extremism.”
As the globalist establishment continues hyping the threat of ISIS to justify its anti-freedom and anti-sovereignty plotting, that same establishment continues to coddle and even arm Islamists and jihadists across the Middle East — and especially in Syria right now. Biden, U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, and virtually every credible analyst who has commented on the subject acknowledges that ISIS was armed and funded by Obama’s supposed “anti-ISIS” coalition, even as the administration continues to shower U.S. weapons and support on terrorist groups seeking to overthrow the Syrian dictatorship. Rather than further empowering the UN to wage a “global terror war,” a much more sensible approach would be to start by ending weapons shipents to terrorists.
The riot in Ferguson reminds me, I hate criminals, but I hate liberals more. They planned this riot. They stoked the fire, lied about the evidence and produced a made-to-order riot.
Every other riot I’ve ever heard of was touched off by some spontaneous event that exploded into mob violence long before any media trucks arrived. This time, the networks gave us a countdown to the riot, as if it were a Super Bowl kickoff.
From the beginning, Officer Darren Wilson’s shooting of Michael Brown wasn’t reported like news. It was reported like a cause.
The media are in a huff about the prosecutor being “biased” because his father was a cop, who was shot and killed by an African-American. What an assh@le!
Evidently, the sum-total of what every idiot on TV knows about the law is Judge Sol Wachtler’s 20-year-old joke that a prosecutor could “indict a ham sandwich.” We’re supposed to be outraged that this prosecutor didn’t indict the ham sandwich of Darren Wilson.
Liberals seem not to understand that they don’t have a divine right to ruin someone’s life and bankrupt him with a criminal trial, just so they’re satisfied.
The reason most grand jury investigations result in an indictment is that most grand juries aren’t convened solely to patronize racial mobs. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was basically demanding an indictment of Wilson before Big Mike’s body was cold. It was only because of racial politics that this shooting wasn’t dismissed without a grand jury, at all.
Obama says anger is an “understandable reaction” to the grand jury’s finding. Why? And why — as almost everyone is saying — are we supposed to praise the “peaceful protests”?
There’s nothing to protest! A cop shot a thug who was trying to kill him. The grand jury documents make perfectly clear that Big Mike was entirely responsible for his own death. Can’t the peaceful protesters read?
The night of the riot, Obama said the law “often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion.” Maybe, but not in this case — except toward Officer Wilson.
I know liberals were hoping they had finally found the great white whale of racism, but they’re just going to have to keep plugging away. They might want to come up with a more productive way to spend their time, inasmuch as they’re about 0:100 on white racism sightings.
Anyone following this case has seen the video of Big Mike robbing a store and roughing up an innocent Pakistani clerk about 10 minutes before being shot by Officer Wilson. They’ve seen him flashing Bloods gang signs in photos.
They know Brown’s mother was recently arrested for clubbing grandma with a pipe over T-shirt proceeds. They’ve seen the video of Brown’s ex-con stepfather shouting at a crowd of protesters after the grand jury’s decision: “Burn this bitch down!”
Liberals will say none of that is relevant in court, but apparently they don’t think actual evidence is relevant either. It’s certainly relevant in the court of public opinion that the alleged victims are a cartoonishly lower-class, periodically criminal black family.
TV hosts narrated the riot by saying it showed “the community” feels it’s not being listened to. Only liberals look at blacks looting and say, See what white Americans made them do?
That’s their proof of injustice — look at how blacks are reacting! (While I don’t approve of the looting part, I do approve of the whole throwing-bottles-at-CNN part.)
The looters aren’t the community!
The community doesn’t want black thugs robbing stores and sauntering down the middle of its streets. The community doesn’t want to be assaulted by Big Mike. The community didn’t want its stores burned down.
That community testified in support of Officer Darren Wilson. About a half-dozen black witnesses supported Officer Wilson’s version of what happened. One was a black woman, who saw the shooting from the Canfield Green apartments. Crying on the stand, she said, “I have a child and that could have been my son.”
And yet, she confirmed all crucial parts of Wilson’s account. She said “the child” (292-pound Big Mike) never had his hands up and the cop only fired when “the baby” was coming at him. “Why won’t that boy stop?” she asked her husband.
I always want to know more about the heroic black witnesses. They are put in a position no white person will ever be in and do the right thing by telling the truth — then go into hiding from “the community” being championed by goo-goo liberals.
White people don’t feel any obligation to defend some thug just because he’s white. Only blacks are expected to lie on behalf of criminals of their own race.
But real heroism doesn’t interest liberals. They only ooh-and-ahh over blacks with rap sheets. The only meaningful white racism anymore is the liberal infantilization of black people.
By Dick Morris on November 28, 2014
Obama’s amnesty for illegal immigrants will produce a disaster of unparalleled magnitude when the ObamaCare employer mandate kicks in.
Those granted amnesty will not be eligible for ObamaCare. The amnesty will merely keep them safe from deportation. It won’t make them legal. And ObamaCare can only go to citizens and legal noncitizens living in the U.S.
But the employer mandate in ObamaCare requires large companies to offer insurance to each of their full time workers or pay a hefty fine to the government for failing to do so.
Combine these two programs and you have a huge incentive for employers to dismiss any blue collar workers on their payroll and replace them with illegal immigrants covered by amnesty. These folks are allowed to work but not to get ObamaCare. An employer can’t be fined for failing to offer ObamaCare to employees who are ineligible to receive it!
An employer’s dream!
Some argue that the anti-discrimination provisions of ObamaCare will bar employers from offering insurance to some of their workers (citizens and legal immigrants) and not to others (illegal immigrants). That argument seems farfetched since the illegal immigrants cannot enroll in ObamaCare.
But, even if the argument holds water, what is to prevent an employer from simply refusing to insure any of his workers at all? Then he could replace the citizens and legal immigrants on his payroll with illegal immigrants (legal to work but not to get ObamaCare). He couldn’t be fined for not insuring a workforce that cannot accept the insurance!
By creating a pool of work-legal/ObamaCare-illegal workers, Obama will make the incentive to replace citizens with illegal immigrants practically irresistible.
(My thanks to Dennis M. Lynch, documentary filmmaker, for alerting me to this situation).
As Democrats bemoan the loss of blue collar whites who voted with Republicans in the midterm elections, wait til the now amnesty/ObamaCare mandate combo kicks in. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
As the 2016 elections approach, this conflict between amnesty and the employer mandate will likely become a major campaign issue. It calls into question the two hallmarks of the Obama presidency and puts them on a collision course. Even the strongest defenders of either policy have to concede the problem and come up with solutions. But they may be hard to come by.
Obama cannot solve the problem by giving illegal immigrants legal status by executive order. If he felt he could, he would have done so already in his huge executive power overreach. And Congress is not likely to cooperate in changing the employer mandate or in making the newly amnestied immigrants eligible for ObamaCare. Republicans will be more inclined to let the Democrats stew in the brew they have concocted.
The dimensions of this problem are enormous. One wonders if any of Obama’s crew spotted it during the run-up to his executive order. It is hard to imagine President Clinton failing to notice such a conflict between his two major programs.
Already, the Center for Immigration Studies points out that the Census Bureau figures indicate that three out of four new jobs created under Obama’s tenure have gone to non-native born Americans (a category the Census says covers legal immigrants, illegal ones, and naturalized US citizens). Out of eight million new jobs created since 2008, six million have gone to people who are not native born American citizens. Now, the desire of employers to find a way out from under the expensive mandate in ObamaCare will accelerate the process. It will be a great line to feature on your resume that you came here illegally and are not eligible for ObamaCare. It will go a long way toward guaranteeing a job.
(Tea Party) – It is the belief of the Tea Party that legislation ratified by Congress and signed into law has been nullified by executive order of President Obama. But does Obama have the authority to nullify any law?
Sharp criticism has followed President Obama’s seeming creation of new law, but few are discussing how existing law has been trampled underfoot. The Obama amnesty was a blow to the good working citizens of the United States, the legal immigrants who been patiently waited in line, and to the Constitution.
Critics and constitutionalists have declared President Obama’s amnesty action has reached far beyond the Constitution and the executive branch of government. Proponents of amnesty have cited that several presidents have created law in the past, while critics argue the president does not have the power to create law and surely not the power to nullify law.
SPECIAL: Make Barack Hussein Obama pay for his crimes against America. How much are you willing to take before you stand up and do something? This is your opportunity to be a true Patriot. Support the Tea Party Constitution Fund.
However, the Tea Party Research Team and the Tea Party attorney staff have discovered what they believe is a silver bullet against the so called new law giver’s amnesty.
While the authority of the president to take executive amnesty action is in question, the underlying concern is the contradiction of existing legislation passed by Congress and ratified by previous presidents. The actions of President Obama did indeed nullify large portions of immigration law, thereby setting immigration law on its head and cutting the heart out of the immigration process.
Can the President of the United States have the authority to nullify any law, and if so, what will be the next target for nullification? What else is on the chopping block? Is it the Second Amendment, our freedom of speech, or perhaps the government’s right to coin money or to raise and maintain a military?
Can the Chief Executive possess a power so great that he can nullify any law by simply stating something contrary and then demand enforcement of the new law by standing down of the existing law?
“We are creating a Tea Party Legal Task Force to explore the standing and the legal ramifications of a lawsuit against President Obama and his attempt to nullify existing immigration law. Does the President possess the authority to nullify existing law? The Tea Party Legal Task Force believes the answer is a resounding NO, thereby making Obama’s amnesty null and void.” Steve Eichler CEO Tea Party/Tea Party.org
Furthermore, the theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts. State nullification is where a state attempts to nullify a federal law by overriding it, however in this case, can a U.S. President override federal law? The Tea Party clearly says: NO YOU CAN’T.
There are many cases on point regarding states attempting to nullify federal law, but has the groundwork been laid for the United States versus Barack Hussein Obama?
By creating new law, Obama has nullified existing law and therefore caused damages to legal immigrants who are protected by existing immigration law. Who will pay for their damages?
The destructive path of broken dreams and honest hardship experienced by legal immigrants leads directly to the White House. The Tea Party will not stand idly by and watch legal immigrants cast aside by a rogue president and a horde of illegal aliens.
StevePostDSteve Eichler J.D.
“America’s Legal Analyst” is the CEO of Tea Party, Inc. and serves on the board of several prominent Tea Party organizations and is a lifetime Minuteman. Graduated from Liberty University with a Bachelor of Science Degree. Graduated from American Schools – Studies in Real Estate, Insurance, Financial Services. Graduated from Trinity Law School with a Juris Doctorate in Law. Continued Studies in International Law beyond the Doctorate Degree. Member of the International Bar Association. Author of the book: From Rages To Royalty and Last Chance For Liberty.
Nine months ago, the new Homeland Security secretary, Jeh Johnson, received a request from the White House. President Obama wanted him to personally take on perhaps the administration’s toughest political assignment: looking for creative ways to fix America’s immigration system without congressional action—or executive overreach.
Just four months into the job, Johnson had been prepared to take on tough security issues: Bombs on planes. Deadly diseases. Radical Islamists carrying U.S. passports. As the Pentagon’s chief counsel, Johnson had routinely dealt with contentious national security matters, finding himself in the midst of sensitive political fights like whether and how to close Guantanamo Bay, allowing gays in the military, and the rapid expansion of America’s killer drone program.
He wasn’t prepared for a crisis of purely political making.
Just days earlier Obama had been labeled the “deporter in chief” by a top Hispanic leader and ally, furious over the inaction by a president who seemed trapped between the demands of his supporters to allow millions of long-time residents who lacked documentation to stay in the country, and the seemingly endless foot-dragging of Republicans.
That request to Johnson would prove critical: a moment when the president set on the path of a much more ambitious change than the narrow changes in civil enforcement policy he and his aides had initially explored. In the remaining months of 2014, Obama would come to support a sweeping executive action to allow millions of undocumented immigrants to stay in the country, as Congress lurched from willingness to consider changes to strained immigration laws to refusing to tackle the issue at all. Meanwhile, interest groups from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to the Business Roundtable, from K Street’s shrewdest lobbyists to the most hard-nosed union bosses, intervened to try to shape the direction of the order.
At several key points, Obama wavered under pressure from members of his own party, worried about an electoral collapse that happened anyway when the votes were counted in the midterm elections earlier this month. Throughout, Johnson worked, largely in secret on the grand plan that finally became public this week, convening a small group of former Capitol Hill aides with expertise on immigration to work with Homeland Security officials to draft a policy that all expected would provoke not only fierce opposition from conservatives but from liberals who thought Obama should go further. It was a consuming task: in all, sources said, the immigration issue ate up fully half of the Homeland Security secretary’s time in recent months, with Johnson —a high-powered corporate attorney in his previous life — writing the final presidential memorandum himself.
By the time Obama went before the American people to unveil his plan in an Oval Office speech to the nation Thursday night, the White House and DHS had exchanged dozens of drafts and endured months of starts and stops, punctuated by a sharp electoral defeat for their fellow Democrats. Still, they went forward, with the president finally telling aides of his decision in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Monday night.
Johnson, for his part, seemed anxious to be done with a journey he portrayed as a political lesson.
“I was new to immigration law and policy…when I came into this job,” Johnson said this week. “Before that it was law of armed conflict, national security fiscal law. I’ve been disheartened and disappointed with how volatile the issue has become in American politics. I hope that people will look at immigration reform from a common sense point of view, what makes common sense, what’s practical, what’s pragmatic.”
Summer of miscalculations
Three months after Obama’s first overture to Jeh Johnson, Republicans had not given up on the idea of an immigration plan of their own. At least, some argued, there was a political opening to forestall any independent action by the president. June 12 was the day that Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) planned to unveil to House leaders an immigration bill that, he was convinced, many Republicans could get behind.
For more than a year since Obama’s re-election, in which Hispanic voters had turned out in unprecedented numbers to vote against a Republican nominee who came out hard against undocumented immigrants (Mitt Romney even memorably called on them to “self-deport”), Republicans had flirted with — and invariably backed away from — proposals for comprehensive immigration reform. Any bill that could be seen as granting legal status to people who entered or stayed in the country illegally was a non-starter for many conservatives. Senate Republicans like John McCain and Marco Rubio had eventually, carefully, stuck out their necks just far enough to get a comprehensive reform bill through the Democratic-controlled Senate. But the Republican-controlled House was another matter. GOP leaders saw the need for some sort of action, but rank-and-file conservatives were deeply skeptical or outright opposed.
Enter Diaz-Balart, the Floridian whose Hispanic background and solid relationships with conservative members of the House GOP conference made him well-positioned to broker a compromise. In May and early June, Diaz-Balart spent his evenings quietly shopping a PowerPoint presentation of a border enforcement and legalization bill to his colleagues. He poll-tested the proposal. He recruited a whip team of roughly eight lawmakers and they secured soft commitments from at least 120 Republicans, enough to pass Democratic support, according to multiple sources familiar with the process.
He had planned to sit down with House leaders on June 12, ask for a week to firm up the numbers and secure their commitment to bring the bill to the floor — from which he hoped it would pass with a bipartisan majority. Behind the scenes, he kept the White House informed of his actions. Obama held out hope that Diaz-Balart might succeed where so many others had failed, agreeing to delay the release of a narrow batch of executive actions on immigration to avoid antagonizing conservatives at a delicate moment in Diaz-Balart’s negotiations.
But then, just two days before the meeting, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader who had gingerly supported certain immigration reforms, lost the Republican primary for his Virginia House seat to an insurgent candidate who hammered him for his supposed softness on immigration. “Eric Cantor saying he opposes amnesty is like Barack Obama saying he opposes Obamacare,” thundered Dave Brat, an obscure college professor who challenged the powerful majority leader. Beating Cantor, Brat claimed, “is the last chance” to prevent undocumented immigrants from pouring into the country.
“We were so close,” Diaz-Balart says now. “We were closer than the House has ever been.”
Obama was back at square one. He had no bill to sign. And he was coming under pressure from his liberal allies. Hispanic advocates remained furious with him for waiting so long to do something— anything. Frustrated Senate Democratic leaders prodded him to take unilateral action by the end of the summer — just before the midterm elections — a timeline that White House officials tried unsuccessfully to get the senators to reconsider.
Then, in a face-to-face meeting outside the Oval Office in late June, House Speaker John Boehner informed Obama that not only would his Republican members decline to address immigration, they planned to sue the president, as well, for exceeding his authority in a variety of administrative actions taken in the absence of congressional approval.
A week later, Obama had settled on his course: He would go it alone, and take much broader executive action than the rest of Washington expected. And he would act soon, setting an end-of-summer deadline. Speaking in the White House Rose Garden, the president turned combative as he repeatedly veered from his prepared remarks.
“The failure of House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our security, bad for our economy, and it’s bad for our future,” he thundered. “Drop the excuses.”
But Obama had bigger problems than Republican intransigence.
A shocking influx of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children, sent by their parents from violence-torn villages in Central America, were crossing the southwestern border of the United States, where overwhelmed federal border guards struggled to find ways to handle them. Some news reports mistakenly suggested that the parents were responding to Obama’s promises of leniency; and as the numbers of children grew, even some previously supportive Democrats began getting cold feet about Obama’s plans to loosen immigration rules at a time when they feared it could send still more migrants flooding to the border. The first signs of the impending border crisis had been visible when Obama made his June announcement, but Democrats did not anticipate how it would alter the political landscape.
National Republicans soon launched a campaign to make the border influx a defining issue in the midterm elections. But Obama, at first, was unmoved.
In July, one White House aide dismissed the notion that Obama would pay much heed to the potential damage to Democratic candidates in conservative areas of the country. “My guess is it is pretty minimal,” the official said when asked what effect the fate of his party in the midterms would have on Obama’s decision. “We are going to do what we think is the right thing to do.”
Testing the legal boundaries
As the politics got worse for endangered Democrats, outraged liberal activists were besieging the White House with demands for what should go into his executive orders.
Senior White House officials including counsel Neil Eggleston and domestic policy adviser Cecilia Munoz hosted more than 20 sessions in July and August with business, labor, Hispanic activists and lawyers. There was no shortage of special pleadings.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus wanted Obama to protect all 8 million undocumented immigrants who would have been eligible for legal status under the Senate bill. Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft and other high-tech players pressed officials to include some of their longstanding requests, such as recapturing unused green cards to bring in more skilled workers from abroad. So-called “dreamers,” the young undocumented immigrants for whom Obama extended administrative relief in 2012, pleaded for similar leniency for their parents. Undocumented farm workers sought a special carve out, too.
That only added to the pressure on Johnson and his small working group back at the Department of Homeland Security, who were struggling to come up with a plan that was legally defensible and yet sufficient to address the political demand. Some advocates, including California’s liberal Rep. Zoe Lofgren, an immigration attorney, drafted extensive memos for the administration laying out their own legal rationales for expanded executive action.
At DHS, however, Johnson and his team were hungry for information to back up their decisions. As time went on, they leaned more heavily on the work of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank that churned out data that caught the department’s attention. One report offered detailed projections of how each of the different categories of undocumented populations might benefit from executive action — possibilities based mostly on educated guesses from the Institute’s experts.
DHS aides were impressed enough to seek two personal briefings for Johnson from the Institute’s staff.
The process appeared to be humming along.
A debate on Air Force One
On Labor Day, Obama was traveling to Milwaukee, a battleground in recent years with Republicans as they’ve sought to curb union benefits. The president invited a small group of top labor leaders to fly with him to the event. The conversation aboard Air Force One turned to a heated political debate: whether Obama should take executive action on immigration before the November election.
Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, urged the president to stick with his plans to act by the official end of summer, less than three weeks away. But Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, argued that Obama should delay the announcement until after the election, out of concern for Democratic Senate candidates who might be caught in the backlash. The conflicting advice, some advocates contend, undermined the unified front that activists were desperate to maintain, particularly as Senate Democrats grew nervous. (Gerard and Henry declined to comment.)
Over the next few days, more and more Democrats began siding with Gerard.
What really worried the White House was that opposition wasn’t limited to vulnerable moderates up for reelection in Republican-leaning states. Sen. Al Franken, a liberal from Minnesota, expressed concerns. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who wasn’t on the ballot, pointedly asked Obama to wait until after the election. And Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with Democrats, declared openly that it would be a “mistake” for the president to do anything alone, ever.
When King personally delivered that message to White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, the Obama team knew it had a problem. If an independent from Maine, a state Obama won by 15 points, couldn’t support the president’s actions on immigration, they really were in trouble. David Simas, the White House political director, asked Guy Cecil, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, for polling on the immigration issue. Cecil gave him polls commissioned by the Iowa and Arkansas Senate campaigns, showing vast numbers of voters who didn’t want Obama to ease pressure on undocumented immigrants without the agreement of Congress.
The White House realized it couldn’t put out an executive order that would get attacked by candidates of the president’s own party. By that Friday night, as Obama flew home from a NATO Summit in Wales, he began calling allies to inform them of his decision to delay action — dealing yet another setback to the immigration reform advocates and the president’s relationship with Hispanic voters.
The anger was palpable as the Congressional Hispanic Caucus squared off with top White House officials in a meeting room steps away from the House floor in September, days after the announcement. The lawmakers viewed the president’s decision to delay action as the latest in a long line of broken promises.
As they sat around a long table in a meeting room of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s office, more than a half-dozen lawmakers spoke as the caucusgrew impatient with McDonough, Munoz, and other Obama aides.
Democratic Reps. Tony Cardenas and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard spoke about the pressures they were under from impatient and disappointed constituents in Los Angeles. Cardenas, in particular, pressed the White House to maximize the number of undocumented immigrants who could be protected under the president’s authority — telling officials that if the number of immigrants covered under Obama’s order turned out to be smaller than expected — say, 3.5 million — he would feel that Obama hadn’t gone far enough.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), for his part, was adamant that the Obama administration follow through on executive action by Thanksgiving.
Roybal-Allard wanted to know: Would the formal recommendations from the caucus, which lawmakers had sent months earlier, be included?
They had the memos, the aides responded.
The lawmakers, White House aides promised reassuringly, would be pleasantly surprised by the outcome.
Closed doors at DHS
The drafting process going on in the bowels of the DHS headquarters was a mystery to those on the outside. And that’s the way Johnson — and the White House — wanted it.
Disciplined and direct, Johnson approached his work for the White House like an attorney going to the mat for his clients. Unlike some political figures, he wasn’t interested in buffing up his own image. As an early supporter of Obama’s 2008 campaign, Johnson had credibility in the president’s insular world. No matter what, he wasn’t going to leak details of the president’s plan.
WATCH: President Barack Obama’s “one step forward, two steps back” history on immigration reform.
Despite his scant knowledge of the complex web of immigration laws when Obama first handed him the assignment, he took personal ownership of preparing the president’s policy. He held dozens of meetings with outside legal experts, lawmakers and interest groups, including NumbersUSA and Center for Immigration Studies, fierce opponents of legalizing undocumented immigrants.
But rarely did they walk away with any sense of Johnson’s thinking.
“He’d be a terrible person to play poker [with]. He could have a cheap-ass hand and you’d think he’d have four aces,” Gutierrez said. “He almost stops breathing when you ask him a question. I feel he gets like, catatonic, like ‘I ain’t telling you nothing. I’m not going to give you any verbal, non-verbal indications of affirmation. I’m not going to let you read me.’”
Johnson’s circle of aides included Capitol Hill veterans like Esther Olavarria, who worked for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), a leading champion on immigration reform for decades; David Shahoulian, a former Lofgren aide; and Serena Hoy, who worked on immigration issues for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Their former colleagues on the Hill struggled to get anything out of them, too.
“These are people that are not going to overstep,” said a prominent immigration attorney who has known the key players for years.
Obama and Johnson, as well as their staffs, traded draft memos and ideas for months. By one count, they produced more than 60 iterations of the proposals. Johnson’s aides would draft something, then shoot it over to Eggleston and Munoz to examine and return with revisions.
The deliberations had gone on for almost eight months without any major leaks on the policy proposals — a feat that impressed White House aides.
But once Johnson’s tight circle expanded last week, the broad outlines of the plan began to seep out, starting the clock on the White House’s rush to unveil the most sweeping executive action on immigration in history.
“He ran an airtight process,” a senior White House official said of Johnson. “It was an impressive thing.”
Shifting into sales mode
As soon as Republicans realized the president was preparing to act, in the days after the GOP’s big victory in the midterm elections, they took to the airwaves to decry his abuse of authority. He was a king, an emperor, a heavy-handed executive abusing his power. Democrats, for their part, didn’t know enough about the president’s plans to offer any defense.
By this week, a belated White House response team kicked into high gear. Munoz and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, the president’s closest aide and confidante, quickly ramped up their outreach. They put out calls to high-tech companies, detailing several changes that would make it easier for them to retain foreign workers. They summoned civil rights leaders in an effort to get buy in and work the grassroots. They dropped hints to Hispanic activists that they would be happy with the result.
But even in the lead-up to Thursday’s prime-time address, not all the president’s allies were happy.
The White House realized it couldn’t put out an executive order that would get attacked by candidates of the president’s own party. | AP Photo
The AFL-CIO, for one, was continuing to voice its displeasure over what it was hearing, including a sweetener for the tech industry that was reportedly included. Top union officials reached out to the Congressional Black Caucus to press their case that a provision to allow tech companies to recapture unused visas would harm American workers.
By Wednesday night, the months of political acrimony, second guessing, and behind-the-scenes furor appeared to subside as Obama sat down for dinner with 18 congressional Democrats. Placed next to the menu of crisp fennel cucumber and tomatoes salad, thyme-roasted rib eye and artichoke puree, was a card with talking points on immigration.
If critics raise the amnesty charge, the response should be: “Taxes and background checks aren’t amnesty. That’s accountability. Doing nothing — that’s amnesty.”
If the president’s legal authority is questioned, say: “Every president for 70 years, both Democrats and Republicans, has taken executive action on immigration.”
When Republicans argue for a government shutdown over it, supporters should respond: “Republicans are blocking funding to conduct millions of background checks.”
As the group sipped on a Cabernet Sauvignon from Washington state and a California Chardonnay in a White House dining room, Obama gave his pitch. His legal rationale was sound, his politics solid. House Republicans had plenty of time to take up immigration reform. More than 500 days had passed since the Senate approved its own comprehensive reform bill, Obama noted.
“This is bold,” Gutierrez told the president. “This is courageous, and generous.”
This one critic at least had finally been converted.
- See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/obamas-secret-9-...
Why was it never built and why is money going into it??
A memorial planned to honor one of the great American leaders of the 20th century has instead become a monument to government waste.
In 1999 Congress authorized building a Washington memorial to honor Dwight D. Eisenhower for his service as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War II and his guidance of the country as its 34th president.
Fifteen years later the project has already cost American taxpayers more than $65 million. And quarrels between the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission on the one hand and Congress and the Eisenhower family on the other hand mean that there’s a real possibility that no memorial will ever be built and the money will have gone for naught.
The commission, the body in charge of the memorial’s “nature, design, construction and location,” previously devoured $41 million of the funds and is on pace to spend the rest of the $65 million allotment from Congress without ever building a monument.
Some members of the commission — which is composed of four citizens appointed by the president, four members of the House of Representatives and four senators — are now lobbying for an additional $50 million in taxpayer funding.
Bruce Cole, a member of the commission who has been critical of the spending, calls the process behind the Eisenhower memorial “the classic definition of a Washington boondoggle.”
The final cost of the monument is now estimated to reach $150 million. In contrast, the Lincoln Memorial cost $47 million to build, adjusted for inflation, according to research by the National Civic Art Society. The expansive Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial, with five water features, four open-air “rooms” and numerous statues and sculptures spread across nearly 8 acres, cost a comparatively modest $65 million.
For taking $65 million from the pockets of taxpayers with absolutely nothing to show for it, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission has been awarded the Golden Hammer, a weekly mark of shame for egregious examples of wasteful spending of tax dollars.
Rampant spending and interminable delays associated with the monument are rooted in the commission’s decision to award the memorial’s design contract to celebrated avant-garde architect Frank Gehry. The selection of Mr. Gehry’s design was fraught with issues, including special treatment for the celebrity architect, a House Committee on Natural Resources majority staff report about the project found.
The report’s authors determined that Mr. Gehry may have been improperly chosen to design the memorial because his submission failed to meet Congress and the commission’s original aesthetic goals. Today, eight years after the original design criteria were established, Mr. Gehry’s plan still fails to meet them. A design jury that evaluated the design proposals even recommended against accepting Mr. Gehry’s proposal.
His design was chosen, nonetheless, partially because “the factors used to select the designer were weighted in a way that benefited a well-known designer such as Gehry,” according to the report.
The chairman of the commission, Rocco C. Siciliano, who served as a special assistant to President Eisenhower, declined to speak on the record, citing ill health.
Carl Reddel, a retired Air Force general who serves as the commission’s executive director, said Mr. Gehry was the ideal choice for a designer of the Eisenhower memorial given the president’s “international constituency.”
“Frank Gehry is the most celebrated architect in the world,” Mr. Reddel said, adding that the name will appeal to “many different stakeholders nationally and internationally” such as “people from WWII ally countries and early NATO members.”
John S.D. Eisenhower, the president’s son, who died late last year, requested that his father be remembered “with an Eisenhower Square that is a green open space with a simple statue in the middle, and quotations from his most important sayings.”
Mr. Gehry’s design, however, ignores these wishes.
The architect’s colossal proposal features a series of 80-foot-tall stone and steel columns that a member of the National Capital Planning Commission said looked like something out of the “latter scenes of ‘Planet of the Apes.’” The columns would hold massive metal tapestries “composed of multiple 3-foot-by-15-foot panels featuring twisted, bent and welded stainless steel wiring” that “when hung together, depict barren trees that are intended to depict the plains of Kansas,” according to the Committee on Natural Resources report.
Opponents of the design fear the columns could obstruct views of the nearby Capitol, and the metal tapestries would require costly maintenance and have to be replaced occasionally.
Members of the Eisenhower family oppose the metal tapestries because they “would be a literal ‘iron curtain’ and are evocative [of] Cold War era Communist iconography,” the report claims.
John S.D. Eisenhower believed “the scope and scale of [Mr. Gehry’s design] is too extravagant and it attempts to do too much. On the one hand it presumes a great deal of prior knowledge of history on the part of the average viewer. On the other, it tries to tell multiple stories. In my opinion, that is best left to museums.”
Susan Eisenhower, the president’s granddaughter, testified to Congress that her family “thinks the design is flawed in concept and overreaching in scale.”
Against the Eisenhower family’s wishes, the commission paid Mr. Gehry’s firm $16.4 million for the design and went to work shoehorning the massive memorial in a small plaza just south of the National Mall, across the street from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.
A public outcry about the memorial’s size and design, as well as concern over the commission’s apparent disregard for the Eisenhower family’s wishes, however, have ground the project to a halt.
“Even the memorials we now regard as great today didn’t have unanimous support in their day,” said Victoria Tigwell, the deputy executive director at the Eisenhower Memorial Commission.
Federal regulations prevent a construction project from beginning until all funding is in place. The rule is a safeguard against projects sitting half-finished for years. In order for that funding threshold to be met, the commission needs to raise another $85 million.
The commission is currently seeking $50 million in additional public funding from Congress, but federal lawmakers want nothing to do with spending more tax dollars on Mr. Gehry’s controversial monument design.
The current design for the Eisenhower Memorial is a “rare exception where there is true bipartisan agreement,” said Justin Shubow, president of the National Civic Art Society. “Democrats don’t want it; Republicans don’t want it. It doesn’t have a single champion in Congress.”
The House of Representatives voted earlier this year to withhold any additional funding for the monument during the 2015 fiscal year.
It appears that any additional federal money for the project is unlikely unless the design is changed to something more reflective of the Eisenhower family’s vision for the memorial.
“Would [critics] rather see no Eisenhower memorial at all than have this one?” asked Ms. Tigwell.
“The fear is that the commission will spend down all its remaining appropriated money on the Gehry design, and the worst will happen: No fitting memorial to a great American and no will to start over,” said Mr. Cole, a former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
In addition to hoping for another $50 million in tax dollars from Congress, the commission planned to raise $35 million from private donors to underwrite a portion of the memorial’s construction costs. The commission spent $1.2 million on a consulting firm to help raise private funds. To date, those efforts have resulted in just $448,000 in donations.
Still, Mr. Reddel remains optimistic about raising money for the project. “As [potential donors] find out how Gehry is bringing the heathland to the capital, we believe we will be able to raise the additional private funding,” Mr. Reddel said.
“According to federal regulation, many more dollars — in the neighborhood of $80 million — will have to be in place before a single shovel of earth can be turned,” Mr. Cole points out. “All this money has to come from the taxpayers’ pockets because, in over a decade, the commission has raised less than $500,000 in private donations.”
Critics claim that the controversy surrounding the monument has made the project toxic for foundations, corporations and wealthy individuals who would typically help to bankroll such an endeavor.
In October, a small group of commissioners met and agreed to slightly alter Mr. Gehry’s design, including removing two of the metal tapestries and eliminating several of the columns in order to make the monument less obtrusive. Thus far, those changes have failed to make Mr. Gehry’s design any more palatable for the Eisenhower family, members of Congress and potential donors.
“There is no way that any version of the [Gehry] design will ever get funded,” Mr. Shubow said.
In the meantime, taxpayers are still being forced to spend $1 million a year funding the nine-person staff that oversees the day-to-day operations of the commission.
“From its K Street aerie, the Eisenhower Memorial Commission staff is wasting yet more money pushing Frank Gehry’s bizarre design — something that Congress has refused to fund and that has already cost the public north of $40 million dollars, with no end in sight,” Mr. Cole said.
Mr. Cole and Mr. Shubow both think a fitting memorial that conforms with the wishes of Eisenhower’s family can be designed and built with the approximately $24 million the commission has yet to burn through.
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Without evil, the good often fail to find their voice.
Your support keeps freedom alive!